Ever since the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Kelo v. New London last year, the issue of "eminent domain" has become a hotbutton topic across all 50 states- especially in California.

In the landmark Connecticut case, the judicial branch upheld the right of local governments, under certain circumstances, to forcibly transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Traditionally, the power of eminent domain has allowed local governments to take private property only for a public use and as long as they "justly compensated" the landowner. While the right was originally designed to give governments the power to make space for public projects and rights of way for public utilities, the decision in Kelo v. New London gave local governments the right to use enhanced tax revenues as just cause to employ eminent domain.

California's Proposition 90, included on this year's ballot initiative, would take away that right.

Under the current California constitution, local governments can take away property rights in order to encourage economic growth, build publicuse facilities and create rights of way for highways and power lines. Proposition 90 aims to limit government acquisition of private property in California.

"(Simi Valley) has used eminent domain in the past, the most recent example being three years ago when the Community Development Agency used it to acquire some blighted commercial property," said Laura Behjan, the assistant city manager for Simi Valley. "The property is being developed into a residential project that includes some lower-income housing."

Proposition 90 aims to amend the constitution in two ways: it would allow local governments to seize property only if the property

were to be used for public purposes, and it would increase the amount of money a property owner is paid if his/her property is seized.

If the proposition passes, governments like Simi Valley would no longer be able to take property without the intention of using it for public projects.

They could not take property to transfer it to a private use, to address a public nuisance (unless that nuisance existed on the property) or in an effort to increase tax revenues or attract businesses.

"The City Council has already adopted a policy that puts them on record as saying that they would not use eminent domain for purposes of acquiring residential property unless it was to be used for public infrastructure purposes, such as rights of way for roads," Behjan said. "The purpose of the policy was to make the public feel secure that the City Council wasn't going to come in and take someone's home to build a commercial project or new housing. It would only be used for public infrastructure needs."

The passage of Proposition 90 would prevent the city of Simi Valley from acquisitioning commercial property such as the blighted lot that was acquired three years ago.

Analysts believe that while Proposition 90 will give greater rights to property owners, it will also incur heavy budget costs on local and state government agencies, especially if they are weighed down by litigation.

"The City Council doesn't take positions on propositions; they leave these decisions up to the electorate," Behjan said.